Monday, December 4, 2017

The Subtle Blade: Christianity and Conquest

In this discussion, we'll acknowledge, but try not to focus on, the foundation and use of Christianity as an aspect, perhaps the most important, of biological conquest. Not lightly do we address this subject, given the incompletely valid references to passions young and old which persist as side effects. Imagine, for example, a person from 1,000 B.C. and a person from 2017 A.D. transported to a mediation table, where they each scream at the other that they have no idea what it was like to live in the other person's timeline, and how much assistance their spirituality gave them, and how ignorant the other person is of the way the world has worked or is working.

Though it would mortify the person born earlier, on whose grave we've been dancing for quite a while now, there is still some cohesiveness attributed in part to the post-JC wasteland, wherein forms of spirituality, disguised successors to the older, have been, as it were, manna in the desert. Arguably older conclusions, were they made, can be said to've been partly wrong also, which error is of a substantially different variety--yet, in its consuming aspect, and the reduced interplay with formal pseudoscience to which some older spiritualities were subjected, wrongness is rather comprehensive. Far be it for this one to dance harder upon graves, particularly ones that attempted to be helpful rather than to forestall through guesses made gospel (sic), but we must at least acknowledge the potency of religious wrongness, for even in a tiny portion it can be misused.

Christianity as Conquest: Soulular Universalism

Here follows an acknowledgement of the unspoken non-topic, the prelude, to Christianity's wrongness. We might first notice the universalism that underpins Christianity. By decreeing that every soul was valuable, Christianity made humans numbers, interchangeable and useless except as vessels of deference. The predecessor to affirmative action, to say the least, Christianity's march turned the landholding fathers' decision into, so to speak, the television masses' vote or the welfare degenerate female vote (whichever you prefer, as both are true; and yes, landholding fathers are idiots also, but a thousand and a half years ago, we might speculate a different quality of "average voter," which speculation might render us assistance). The effects have been profound. Whether for good or ill can be your judgment, but Christianity's ideatic role in rewriting the future, and the governmental customs of several continents, must be noted.

We recoil from, say, the hypothetical attempt to cull disability from future generations, as though subsidizing the production of non-disabled is more evil than our current tax structure. Easy to do if you're not congenitally disabled and haven't felt it; even easier if you're merely very selfish, and don't mind imposing suffering on at least ten generations by aiding in the perpetuation of said suffering. Such weighing of lives finds its roots in Christianity, wherein the soul of a pain-wracked cripple who steals from the collection plate is as valuable as the soul of the lusty hero who saves three children from the runaway train. Christianity foreshadows Bang and now in so many ways, notwithstanding its contentious relationship with then-European strength-favoring culture. It is easy to underestimate this effect if one considers the "obvious" perspective before Christianity, where it is an obvious wrongness to breed a hundred stealing cripples at the expense of one healthy track-attendant. Like many things here for which it is impossible to perceive a previous obvious, Europe's comparative preference for sloth has been subtly altered over hundreds of years.

(Talk with some pained dying about creating more people with their destiny, and keep your own survey about whether or not they want to put someone through it, as opposed to letting half the number live without it. Really, do: today, you might find not zero, but some of a hundred clinging to the belief of a "cure" that will liberate potential successors, but absent the reality of such a cure you might find, instead, a Stockholmish or hateful attitude toward the causes of the pain.)

Christianity as Conquest: Imposed Blindness

In accordance with the aforementioned effects goes Christianity's observational denialism. By demanding ignorance, Christianity's notion of "faith"--which we previously knew as either "trust" or "stupidity"--has had matching effects on government and society. The trend of blindly trusting authorities stems from Christianity's hidden texts and subversion of Latin, ergo our acceptance of televised elections with "best available" leaders no one likes is Christian, as is our reverence for a priestly class of "scientists" or "academics" which knows things of which we could never conceive. Like the rest of Christianity, the losses and opportunity costs of this aspect of redesigned Zoroastrianism were vast: a gift that has given for more than a thousand years. Not only political blindness, and the innumerable toxic things that have resulted from it, but creating an inherent derision for the un-godly learned, and the consequences of mistrusting unpleasant but observed facts, has been seeded by Christianity. Our denial of doctoral degrees to disagreers is thoroughly Christian, for we will not acknowledge the potential for wrongness.

Christianity as Conquest: Actually Requiring Conquest

The imposition of Christianity by force needs hardly to be spoken of, and yet it does, for many still have the impression, fostered even by the purportedly anti-Christian mandatory schools of the Christianized world, that the religion's stupid promises of future pleasure caused it to be willingly adopted by "the west." In fact, Europe had to be conquered, region by region, century by century, in order to leave behind a population that vocally allied with inbred leaders who claimed allegiance to Christ. We've recently discussed the wrongs done to the Irish, but in turn consider what the survivors did to those Irish who resisted the first armies who murdered the majority of Irish who were "heretics."

(Of course, the grandchildren of the Irish enablers or stay-quiet-ers were given their just desserts from within and without, as are the raped and murdered spawn of the most would-be joyous enablers of western immigration now. Have you been shot by prison guards, yet, while you were trying to break Breivik out? No? Then enjoy the future. Terrible justice, indeed.)

The "side effects," or actual effects, of this conquest were prodigious, not merely in terms of Christianized political systems, but the genetic losses, also, whereby minds that combined inquiry and honesty were almost wholly eliminated, leaving behind as their survivors only the superficially amiable but internally loathing, or the vast majority of quiet non-seers. Christianity by force was rather an acidic test for Europe, whereby stupid herds were given genetic preference. If you still retain a touch of the past, you may wonder at how evolution could've worked that way--and through outsiders imposing Christianity, you have your answer--careful planning.

Nu Euros have grappled with this issue throughout the modern period, wherein thinkers regularly ask, in one or more forms, how the masses can be so stupid. Politics and markets have to deal with manipulation because, absent it, the masses would be so easy to control. Without the guidance of even a Ronald McDonald, people would literally drink poison that acted much, much faster--and they have. Quite seriously, surviving hordes will eat literal "in about an hour" poison when someone interferes with the message. All people who deal with health in some realistic way must confront the issue of "reaching" the everyman. TV helps, but people keep forgetting to finish, or even watch, their televisions, so a constant barrage of "what to do next" must be employed, else they'd strip themselves and start burning things just to see what would happen. Ergo commercials have to be subtracted, or made suitably subtle, and devices have to exist which deliver television commands without even their supposed source of meaning.

Were these traits endemic to Christianized populations before Christianization, or as a result of it? This one holds the latter, but it's certainly possible that dumb enough people do this anyway, ergo the surviving mass of Christianized peoples is more likely to pursue entertainment-by-television, so to speak, than would've been the pre-Christian mass (sic, sick).

Christianity as Conquest: Birth Control

Early Christianity advocates natalism because so many were killed to establish it. We might consider the suddenly-stalled butchery of Africans whereby normal people went across the ocean to kill because they were engaged in the work of uplifting, and then, a few generations later, well-wishers of derivative religions encouraging normal people to cross the ocean to breed. If you're familiar with what happened to people who live near a source of diamonds, versus how eagerly well-wishers now work to rapidly expand Africa's population through breeding and feeding programs well beyond continental infrastructure capability, conjoined to a readjustment of attitudes to those currently acceptable (sold as "modern"), you can imagine Europe after Christianity's advent, where those who stuck to "old ways" were murdered en masse, and those who converted encouraged to quickly have a lot of children. Much is made of the Catholic opposition to "birth control," like the details of many staged rebellions, yet the actual status on birth and reproduction was effected by the first widespread birth control--the Catholic "rhythm method"--whereby intercourse was encouraged for pleasure during non-reproducing times. The rather hilarious pretense that this was not birth control has borne the fruit it was intended to with modern demographics. As time passes between conquests, Jenomic cleansers ("Judaic religions") gradually accede to limiting in certain areas and unlimited in others--an obvious genetic boost to a conquest-focused system. A terrible form of righteous justice, that, comparable to what is befalling the remaining survivors now.

One of the many ways to accustom the unwary to obey you is to tell people to do things they're already going to do. Ergo telling a bunch of young people, "Do it," is a great technique for getting them used to carrying out your wishes. Much of Christianity's similar "advocacy for births," which has proven its truth over the years (always through its actions, though not always through its words), is this technique writ large. Of course if you make yourself the center of "Europeans doing it," the Europeans will continue to do it. Claiming credit makes you quite foul, then ever-so-quietly removing support for births lets you control them. For this is what birth control actually is--the control of births, rather than anti-natalism. Who shall be born, and when the births shall happen, is birth control. It proves itself a short step from "Don't have babies until an old hetero-virgin has pledged you to each other" to "Don't have babies," and the notion that you should pay for someone else's six babies and cut one or two babies from your own total is then easily achieved. Thus did Christianity serve as a useful tool for taking control of a growing population, then seeming to be its ally while first stabilizing, then shrinking, said society.

Like many critiques of Christianity, the observational science--sic--of birth rates, social control, et cetera, can speak for themselves. Even those who believe in the Risen Rabbi can see the way that He has claimed credit for the initial recovery, then shirked credit for the later reduction, in the birth rates of occupied territories. An alien fleet which suddenly occupied Earth, imposed worship of a reptilian general, and happened to be administering things during some triumph--say, the greatest-ever bicycle race coverage or the cure for cancer--would claim credit for the positive things that Earth had produced, eschew full responsibility for the negative, and seem, at first, to be obvious and evil. Yet in a great deal of time, said alien race and religion might be adjudged a native thing. The said invaders would thereby be deemed responsible for the natural progression of bike-races, cancer-treatments, et cetera, even though those things had happened before and would continue to happen.

Christianity as Conquest: Access to Children

This discussion is not about the larger, more systemic of Christianity's negatives, but about the smaller. Superficially, if we ignore all of the details of Christianity's imposition, and focus only on now--an enormous task, but assume it--we see the brilliance of the disease that keeps on giving. Christianity isn't merely about killing infidels, encouraging blind trust and stupidity, and absolutely revising itself (notions of advancing time and inevitable social progression being one of the numberless derivatives of the latter), but of ways small and varied that can make it effective in any environment. We'll purposefully avoid the discussion of similarities between all Judaic religions and the populations at which they were targeted, focusing bullishly on "European Christianity," even when such similarities abound.

One of the cardinal rules of successfully conquering a population without exterminating it is severing the parent-child bond. Christianity has done an exemplary job of this, setting the stage for not only mandatory secular schools in occupied territories, but a closer relationship with the state itself, rather than the family. This one commented elsewhere about feminism:

Interesting fight between people who want to defame America’s founding fathers for the wrong reasons, but are factually correct, versus the people who defend them wrongly but for the right reasons. This one also has to point out that, forgotten now, is how a lot of early feminism drew its anger from social impressions of hundreds of years of mandatory Christianity. Pedo-reverends/pedo-priests handled mandatory punishment of kids, getting “confessions” of desires, masturbation, etc. Yet again, this one’s not saying that feminism was correct, but one can understand its source, as well as how the untermenschen and many individuals in crypsis used the Risen Rabbi to gain access to people and families. Viewed in that light, feminism is quite understandable; one of the many fruits borne by Christianity, like modern men’s rights transitioned into Judaism in a match to the women’s movements that had come before.

Feminism stands out because it was primarily (though it didn't know it) about child protection, in the sense of taking a mother's future from her and convincing her to tell everything to a theoretical virgin instead. Forgotten by many, if not all, is the mandatory nature of religion throughout most of Europe's history, where one could not reproduce, work, sleep, or live, without regular attendance, contribution, and ritual. The busybodies in one's condominium association were, in Christian times, like an I.R.S. audit team, ensuring that every child, family, and individual fill space in the pews, listen to whoever was preaching and what they were saying, signing up (or providing an excuse) to take another piece of land from the Arabs and give it to the Jews, et cetera. This theft of freedom, still antithetical to the Nu Euro, is a great part of why the liberation of women was partly (you can make the fraction whatever you like, but be sure to multiply it by infinity for the predilection for protecting women then still more extant in European survivors) correct.

30 comments:

Also, I'm a little worried here about your sanity. Seems blindness is encroaching on your world. Have you always harbored this particular flavor of spite? What are the origins? And if tasked with such, how would you suggest we do things differently where such topics as human-massing-under-banner-of-spiritual-unity are concerned?

You starting a religious sect of your own, with handbooks and walk-through Patreon videos explaining the practices?

Pardon my French, but your satire needs work, as the 3 foregoing Qs suggest. It was obvious whom Aristophanes was japing on with "The Clouds," but in the case of this interesting-yet-confused blog, the end result from my view is that your jape is self-directed, while being considered (by you, I mean) a mockery of something else.

I do need help--are you saying you believe in Risen Rabbi but his message (this one'd say of universalist adoption and thoughtless obedience) has been corrupted? Like, do you believe in Torah (Chosen People, firmament, et cetera), or do you believe Gospel was non-Jewish, or do you believe some transcendent message reached us through a partial Gospel?

Also, given the RC's long history of people commanding acceptance of what a non-RC-touched society would call "invasion," are you saying the Church is wrong/corrupted administratively, but that it clumsily or unknowingly chooses local agents who work against it (even in just some areas?), or that it only seems that way to confused individuals (e.g. this one) and the Church is in fact actually against all those things? Like, the Pope didn't actually issue commands that all Catholics accept moneylender invasion, but that is really old fake news?

(And is all the killing okay because if brought truth, or is it just fake news that people from the desert spread north, and outsiders were willingly embraced?

Like Bang, Risen Rabbi seems to produce people who get angry at me if I ask too much and don't just shut up and believe after a limited time span, but this one'd be fine to go through an attempted written conversion process. Yes, please, a little help!

I must say, however: your persistence in hammering a falsity, in enough colors to make a ROYGBIV flag tattoo on your taint with a sparkleponyunicornoflove hovering above the semiotic signifier (akin to B-R's 53 flavors, likewise in shades and tones of Roy Gee Biv with burnt ochre/umber/offering shades), it's probably the sort of thing that makes a 4'10", 95 lbs "man" feel like he could beat up a chihuahua. In other words, I guess you find it somehow existentially invigorating and maybe even a kind of Viagra for engorging the impression of one's own intellect.

I find it more amusing when it's done by a sniveling little homunculus who imagines himself a political Rod Serling, or a mariposita masquerading as a Goebbels while on the pay of the Lange-Leigh kook cadre. In such cases, the lampoonery has such a failing quality as external targets go, but is very successful in shrinking the height-advantaged puppet's diminutive stature.

But maybe you're trying to be as suave and smart and sophisticated as Rickybobby Spanker, or as dwarven in height and intellect as that ersatz Serling, whose name I can't remember well enough to distort.

Or maybe you're just Sarah Saggytits Silverman, and this is your "humor" -- elite, Talmudic and full of spite & envy because you happened to be born to a cow-hedgehog union and are saddled with dragon breath, a scoured 'tween cave, a stretched cloaca, and a swingin' income because you know how to harsh on stoooopydooooopy goys?

In any case, I offered to help. Being insecure and unable to admit weakness or deficiency, however, you misunderstand it as me being "angry."

You're probably telling yourself I'm part of Opus Dei and redder in aspect than a bowl of borscht because I'm so spiritually offended.

It's okay, being wrong seems the main thrust of this verbal vector you're on. I don't want to stand in the way of your enlarging or perfecting that mistake.

Oh, please forgive me, I had heard that Jesus' status as a rabbi was so solidified it wasn't even controversial, and the Men's Rights Trump movement is occasionally very outspoken against the SPLC, so I saw a parallel with them and what became the Church when it came to the Pharisees.

So historicate me, since I really don't understand: was/is Jesus not a spiritual leader of the Jews? Was/is He a rebel, the only one we can trust, or was/is He never actually Jewish and that's just a lie to which I've fallen? And given that, was/is He betrayed by, misunderstood by, or completely opposed by the Vatican's post-33 A.D. decrees about respecting Jewish property and letting Jews and their guests live in Europe unmolested forever by true believers?

I've heard about the ones who say that the NT applies but the OT doesn't, but I thought they were quite anti-Catholic, and generally anti-establishment anyway, given the ~1,700 years of the Church supporting the OT. Or does this one have that wrong?

I'd love to learn and love to learn what is right, what's not, and correspondingly, what this one could fix about these perspectives. The Jesus of whom this one's been previously informed would want me taught in order to save my soul--or do I have even that wrong? Which is the true book, or is it something you're supposed to know independent of a book of truth? If the latter, this one already doesn't know the book, ergo is not now and never shall be saved, but if the former, please tell me at least a snippet of what I should be reading. 'Cause I'll read it, I'm not mad, I'll happily be saved, and if it's not about salvation (another lie to which this one's fallen prey?) then tell me what should be read to learn alone. There must be some wiggle room for inquiry, or if there's not, just say "you're hopeless." But if there is wiggle-room, let this one avail itself of it by reading. It's completely possible that I've been completely/partially misinformed up to this moment, and this is my one chance to learn, so please take mercy on me and let this one learn!

(Possibly said by a conquered European to a god-fearing Nu Euro who wasn't about to be bound by tradition, but that attitude itself could bespeak my existential failings, and if it can be remedied, please remedy it!)

It seems you're grappling with what you imagine are my drivers, and trying to make me look _______ (ignorant, either willfully or through IQ deficiency; or the like). Such trolling looks to be a corn niblet on a rusty hook, dragging from a kite string along a muddy bottomed low-oxygen stream, seeking catfish.

They do taste like chicken when prepared properly, maybe that's what drives you.

However, I'm not pisciform and even if I were, that's not what would be the particular specie I inhabit.

Good luck feeling superior at catching those catfish, and don't let their whiskerbarbs get you. I'll let you keep cherry-picking your foci and perhaps from your accumulated experience at angling, you'll learn how better to understand the prey and perhaps after catching 20 or so catfish, you'll realize the less wily & wise fish are the easy eating for din-din while many other piscators and cazadors spend lifetimes refining pursuit of finer fish. They're tougher to catch because they're not dim and don't play a desperate game of dimwitted consumption, every piece of trash gobbled up.

When you gut them for cooking, you'll see what I mean. Their gullets laden with non-edibles might be the first clue.

Although you haven't answered my questions, to which you probably have a righteous aversion (because you can figure out that they lead nowhere good for your claimed beliefs) together we've done a pretty good verbal reenactment of Christianizing Europe. You become angry that I haven't already learned about the desert outsider whom I should worship eternally, and on whose behalf I should fund/invite more outsiders so long as they might believe in him. Instead of perceiving this behavior as an attack, this one asks more about the desert outsider, convinced that you can be reasoned with. You respond belligerently, this one asks for an explanation, and we repeat the cycle a few times, each time with me looking more foolish for not perceiving the attack, and you being vindicated in your belief that unacceptance of the desert outsider proves stupidity. And still, here I am, talking about it, living proof that the material world hands victory to those who cannot be bothered to explain, and defeat to those who think they might ever get one. "Obey now" could not be more honestly expressed, and my own failure is but a continuation of that long-ago failure. My material stupidity, my failure and loss, is proven.

PS: I had reasons, legitimately discerned ones, for the mention of the Reiter bit. Did you look up Hildy? How about Dr Grace? Pay attention to the collage of items you can find about each.

Now, with that grab-bag of associations in hand, ask yourself: what relevance do these have, in the context of unbiased weight attached to items alleged to demonstrate a conclusion or principle?

"None" is not an adequate answer.

"None, because X, Y and Z" -- with expositions of each stand-in letter's real rationales -- this would be an adequate answer. Adequate. Which is not to say, conclusive of anything, but rather, at least it suggests there's a filling to this shepherd's pie you're offering.

By all means, minister to me. I can see the story of a man in the desert, formed of an incomprehensible creator, who suffers to show his empathy with the physical discomforts of material existence. This one can also conceive of that message being as subverted and perverted as any other message that would arrive here, as would certainly happen if this planet hosted some type of "dark force." What this one can't see is how such a creative-aspect, even if it wasn't originally so mum on the subject but nefariously edited to be so, could be the son of the Old Testament's derivative Yahweh, murderer in the exclusive service of a very material race. Similarly, this one can't see a viable connection between the Torah-affirming New Testament created decades after its own retelling of a death that has undoubtedly happened many times. E.g., a man from the desert is unjustly killed by imperials of whom he is the moral superior, for trying to deliver a spiritual message of imperial modification which was potentially the opposite of what it now is.

Europe-wise, we can see how this level of patience is a material failure. I'm still willing to try to figure out what you're saying, even though this one knows it is a material wash. Of what non-textual truths can you tell me?

(And, perhaps less-important, was "Christ" a savior-term that you hold to not be on loan from the stolen languages of our material masters, and deserving its own meaning despite these many centuries in-between?)

What's the source of your claim that all Christians love the OT so much?

What's the source of the implication, built on the above, that these Christians love the OT so much that they ignore the NT?

If you pay attention only to the people who are fake-religious rabble-rousers on the internet, you'll end up in the viewpoint redundantly repeated in the main entry above.

I don't really care if a short Jewish man wants to pretend online that he's a tall patrician Protestant dissatisfied with his fellow Christians. Someone has to be a Harvard-wallpaper con artist, may as well be him. He can't do anything else, Crimson toilet paper roll notwithstanding, dwarven intellect not even considered, grandiose self-impression completely ignored.

I'm just talking about the difference between made-up nonsense cobbled by a non-practitioner and/or ignoramus, and that of someone who knows a bit more about the topic because he or she either has exhausted many sources by independent (not tainted by indoctrinated "faith" of any type) examination, or actually has spent a lifetime being one of those Christians.

Every mention of the Jesus figure you've offered has imitated what I've heard from one of these groups: Jews, Muslims, Mormons, "atheists."

It doesn't at all resemble the idea of Jesus that I've heard from these groups: RC, Anglican, Presbyterian, Congregationalist.

So maybe you are talking about Baptists? Methodists? Seventh-Day Adventists?

Or maybe your idea of a Christian is Jimmy Swaggart?

I don't really care about the Jesus figure in a deeply personal way. My life is as it is without any reference back or forward to the Jesus guy or the legends surrounding him. Yet you insist I'm defending a "risen rabbi" and you imply it's because I'm Opus Dei.

The mistaken one here is you. That's my point.

Being animated by the spirit of a Jewish midget who thinks he's Rod Serling doesn't impress me one whit, and doesn't make me laugh either because there's no energy behind the spineless "satire." It looks more like the boll weev ill, yet another intellectual pipsqueak with more ego than brainpower. Or worse, the Moss Ad Agency wannabe, Man-Shoes Mouldbuck.

If that's what you're aiming for, egocentric bluster with nothing backing it up, you've succeeded. But I wonder, what has been the point?

The Church has been rather adamant since it got started that Jesus is the OT's savior. Or do I have that wrong? You're telling me I'm hearing all the wrong information; what is the right information about Jesus? Forget him being Jewish, a rabbi, or any of the things from the OT; what really is he, and is there anything this one can read to learn about him?

Presuming this one comes up with a bunch of NT references to the OT, will you tell me 1) those are falsely seen, as they were really references to some other tradition, 2) those shouldn't be there at all, but were added in by OT-loving infiltrators of the Church and maintained for 1K years, or 3) something else? A minute with Google can provide a substantial amount of information that can be verified in any Bible, so what would you say if this one came up with it again?

Similarly, when the Church issued repeated bulls throughout the middle conquest in support of not driving out communities of merchants and child-thieves, is that fake history that was added later by anti- or pro-semites, or did it really happen but referred to a different group, or...? You seem to be saying that the NT doesn't matter, but then you say it does, and as of like four days ago the Church was still 100% behind the NT and OT combo pack that we can access oodles of on the internet, so is there a more genuine printed version that didn't make it onto the internet? Is it holy, is it not...? If you know of a Jesus that isn't related in any way to those things (from this one's perspective, which may be massively ignorant, Jesus is massively related and those things present massive problems), then by God tell me so I can know him.

(Instead of thinking you're The Smartest Man in the Room, & Very Bored with Weak Challengers, perhaps try imagining you've a mediocre mind polluted by incurious pursuit of things that confirm existing beliefs; and the 2dary feature of that being your beliefs compiled as a system of intellectual fetters, diametrically opposite how most use belief systems.)

It's rather ironic, given the author's belief in self as a sort of literary genius. I might be cackling with glee as I type this.

I'm certainly all of those things--just start me off in the right direction by telling me what I can read to begin to understand. Your words might work best, so if you don't want to cite sources, just tell me, as you, the answer to the question: who is Jesus?

No terms, no insults, no babble. Just tell me who he was and why/how he can save me, and...oh god, implying he can "save" anything implies foreknowledge of something. Let me dial it back, and ask only, "Who is Jesus?"

Let's use mechanical drawing as a metaphor here. People used to do that before computers took over and CAD/CAM became the standard. Dimensional drawing, top-side-side, was the standard. With precision. Advanced drawing was done by those with a gift for taking top-side-side and making a 3d rendering. Because it was so damned difficult, lazy incurious people imagined computers doing it for them, so they could seem competent in the field.

Now in 2017, "engineers" and "draftsmen" are the same, and both categories rely on the microprocessor's bounty as a stand-in for actual chops.

In the same way, one might focus on reading fiction, poetry, angry essayism; or listening to avant-garde "music"; or watching "art house" movies, and in the process think self a consumer of the highest-minded, subtlest-parsing work done by humans.

The problem is who is the stand-in for the microprocessor in that latter case. Think about that.

Imagine I'm teaching Comparative Religion at 2017's Most Prestigious Online University. I have glowing neon certificates from every Gatesian and even from the Sugar Mountain itself.

My final exam will present the following questions:

1) Please compare the following two works of Clive Lewis: The Screwtape Letters, and Mere Christianity. When so doing, offer your considered thoughts on why Mr Lewis wrote two such books, and whether they were for the same, different, or mixed audiences.

2) Among some voices in this semester's class came the following suggestion: "We must first know precisely what or whom is Jesus, in order to know anything about Judaism or Christianity." Please defend that statement, oppose that statement, or defend/oppose it in parts, as the spirit moves you.

FYI, I know a great IP lawyer, and even better litigators -- if my commentary ever gets lifted for profit, lions and tigers will claw it back along with punitive siphoning of ducats and criminal prosecutions of dastardliness.

So mind your mind and watch your pen and keyboard, buster. Only the lowest human, deserving of every metaphoric flaying and Catherine Wheel riding, and perhaps literal ones too, steals others' work and presents it as one's own. It would behoove one not to lift from a generous soul-- especially not from one who is that, but also is a warrior through and through, capable of taking on many and leaving only himself standing.

In the event I haven't already done it enough, let me do two things simultaneously: demonstrate why Europe was taken, and why Nu Euros are probably doomed: I accept being an ignorant, ninny-ninny, wrong about everything, and just ask you to tell me what you're trying to say. Explain it as you would to a child. I am a loss, a fool, not worth anything but maybe an axe, but at least here, on the stone of this grave, you can put what you were trying to accomplish.

Go shuffle checkers pieces as a "gotcha" with someone who is as careless, ego-driven and smug as yourself.

I'm pointing out your flaws; you're the one with a thesis-wannabe in exposition.

Thus far I've told you about your confirmation bias when you talk about Xtians and "risen rabbi" nonsense from a vengefully angry and rationally hampered Judaic perspective: namely, the word-gaming, the hide-a-pea-under-a-walnutshell-half trickster shuffle, the "now you see it, now you don't" crammer's wowzer.

"Crammer," there, as indicator of the brainless one who gets high marks not because of intellect, but because of jam jam jam with the memory tricks and force-feeding, the waterboarding of info-hoarding.

Shameful play among those with actual intellectual chops, but one must handle the crippling deficiencies one's been dealt, I suppose.

Since you can't be bothered to examine anything but that which confirms your shallow "understanding" of things, I'm not the lecturer you want or need. I'm not the guide you ought to hire. I don't work for free, and I don't offer assistance to those who turn a deaf ear and blind eye to what's been shared.

The promise of clawing stands. Don't imagine I don't follow your 1,000 different presences on the shin-tor-gnat. You're easy to track, a one-note-Charlie everywhere you put lips to kazoo and buzz your busybee noise.

I do remain curious about one thing, though. What's the monthly shekel count for being Yossi's puller?

Ah, thank you for the demonstration (though you won't appreciate nor believe in the thanks, it's still there). What became the Nu Euro is characterized by this kind of behavior: willingness to overlook and/or forgive all material slights, sometimes but not always linked to perceptions of similarity, or what we might call "universal brotherhood."

It's always amusing that telling people not to worship the son of Yahweh, whether or not actually a rabbi, becomes called a Jewish technique. We see the conflation here of Europe with foundational illogicalness, wherein truth is the opposite of truth, and vice versa.

From whence comes the desperation that you will criticize as "Jewish" any attempt to not worship a Jew as the sole and all-powerful creator of existence?

As has been said before, it's in deep.

In the event you're still there, I'll repeat my acceptance of my own utter and complete ignorance, and my request that you tell me who is this person, this completely powerful entity, who deserves my belief and/or reverence? Maybe you'll tell me that the history of papal bulls encouraging acceptance of refugee resettlement is fake; maybe you'll tell me the entire Pentateuch is slanderous rumors wholly disconnected from the Gospels, and references thereto are false additions--and maybe it's true. I can accept that. Tell me what you believe in. For God's sake, as you might say.

I don't care about the special education class called "Studies of the Nu Euro," because it originates in the checkers strategies of the subcretinous mind-rapists.

Or, to state it in terms you'll understand: I'm not Nu and I'm not a dweller in Euroland. Regardless, you're cherry picking and you think you've got seedless but you've got the heavily pitted type. Even in vacuous selection, you choose wrongly.

Projectionist who ought to be working at the Cinema Pair-of-Dice-Yo!, you think you're winding me up, when all you're doing is rendering yourself the fabled arse-klowne. That's not a term I use myself, but I am sure it's a regular shorthand among the Eyedee Effers. Haw haw, so funny, amirite?

So here you are, devoid of weighty retort: what will you do next, ask me whether I'm as "rich" as you are?

You might do well to ask me how many times I've cheated, and compare your tally to my own, final calculation rendering your score infinitely higher: anything's higher than zero, you "hero."

Let's try an alternative strategy: you want "clear talk" while you write like a confused chimpanzee still struggling with syntax, tense, possession and passivity -- opting to be passive at every turn.

Is Europe becoming a sewer? Can't say; don't live there; media reports This and I usually believe That and see no reason to do otherwise here. It's built on a durable foundation, that oppositional defiance.

If the continent is being watered down intentionally by migrants, I really don't think it's due to the efforts of people I know in the Merry-Kin nation who attend services at an RC church, since everyone I know in that category doesn't want other-influx, they want stability and predictability.

You, however, blame the RCs. In toto, and I don't mean that shitty backing band turned 1-hit wonder. Hold the line, l'oeuf isn't always on time, henrietta hen will have to stay on her haunches another hour.

I know who is behind thinking globally and acting locally, and it's not my friends who go to RC services, it's not my friends who call selves Xtian and believe in fair-dealing among fellows who trust one another.

The evolution of what we call The Contract, from an oral promise enforceable by the parties to it, to 57 pages of tail-chasing meaninglessness, was not engineered by those calling selves Xtian or RC or Lutheran or Methodist. I'm fairly certain the Nation of Islam didn't cause it. But there's a group who created a religion out of the ether, naming selves Supreme Stewards of Everything, who can't seem to find a single place on the planet where they're welcomed without a lying setup by the advance team. Instinctively, I would look in their direction. Given their behavior over thousands of years, patterned and nearly immutable over that time, the "odds" are in favor of their culpability.